throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`In re:
`
`MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS,
`
`INC.
`
`Miscellaneous
`No. 12—244
`MDL No. 2354
`
`Transcript of proceedings on Wednesday, March 20, 2013,
`United States District Court, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, before
`Joy Flowers Conti, District Judge.
`
`SPECIAL MASTER: Richard D. Eagan, Esq.
`SPECIAL DISCOVERY MASTER: Tina 0. Miller, Esq.
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`Maxim:
`
`Matthew Powers, Esq.
`Leland P. Schermer, Esq.
`William P. Nelson, Esq.
`Mary Fuller, Esq.
`
`Bank of America/Merrill
`Lynch:
`
`Kevin S. Katona, Esq.
`Kevin J. Culligan, Esq.
`
`Bank of the West:
`
`BMO Harris Bank NA:
`
`Edward J. Benz, III, Esq.
`Kirsten R. Rydstrom, Esq.
`
`Harry F. Kunselman, Esq.
`Robert M. Masters, Esq.
`Ryan D. Fabre, Esq.
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`Juliann A. Kienzle, RMR, CRR
`5300 USPO & Courthouse
`700 Grant Street
`
`PA 15219
`Pittsburgh,
`(412) 261—6122
`
`Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography;
`transcript produced by computer-aided transcription.
`
`Maxim Exhibit 2006 - PNC/JPMC, CBM2014-00039 - Page 2006-001
`(cid:48)(cid:68)(cid:91)(cid:76)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:49)(cid:38)(cid:18)(cid:45)(cid:51)(cid:48)(cid:38)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:37)(cid:48)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:28)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`

`

`1 APPEARANCES:
`
`Branch Banking and Trust
`Company:
`
`Kevin S. Katona, Esq.
`Kirsten R. Rydstrom, Esq.
`
`Capital One Financial Corp:
`
`Maya Miriam Eckstein, Esq.
`Daniel G. Vivarelli, Jr., Esq.
`Stephen S. Stallings, Esq.
`
`Chipotle Mexican Grill,
`Inc.:
`
`Benjamin Baughman Lieb, Esq.
`
`CitiBank,
`NA/Citigroup;CitiBank,
`National Association:
`
`Benjamin Baughman Lieb, Esq.
`Robert L. Masterson, Esq.
`
`Comerica, Inc.:
`
`William F. Long, Esq.
`
`Deutsche Bank AG:
`
`Jeffrey A. Finn, Esq.
`
`Expedia,
`Inc./Mobiata/Hotels.com
`
`LP/Hotels.com GP,
`LLC/Hotwire:
`
`Amanda Rose Pezzano, Esq.
`
`Fidelity Brokerage Services,
`LLC:
`
`J. Anthony Downs, Esq.
`Christopher Verdini, Esq.
`
`Groupon, Inc.:
`
`Ryan R. Smith, Esq.
`
`Jack Henry & Associates,
`Inc./First United Bank:
`
`Russell S. Jones, Jr., Esq.
`Richard A. Ejzak, Esq.
`Thomas H. Soehl, Esq.
`
`JP Morgan Chase:
`
`Samuel W. Braver, Esq.
`Shamita Etienne-Cummings,
`
`Esq.
`
`KeyCorp/Key Bank National
`Association:
`
`Tracy S. Johnson, Esq.
`Georgia K.E. Yanchar, Esq.
`
`PNC Financial Services
`
`Inc.
`Group,
`Group, Inc.:
`
`& The Vanguard
`
`Elizabeth Laughton, Esq.
`Lionel M. Lavenue, Esq.
`Scott R. Leah, Esq.
`
`QVC,
`
`INC.:
`
`Timothy S. Durst, Esq.
`Richard A. Ejzak, Esq.
`Thomas H. Soehl, Esq.
`
`2 3
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 2006-002
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:21)
`
`

`

`APPEARANCES: Cont'd.
`
`Starbucks Corp.:
`
`John A. Schwab, Esq.
`
`Target:
`
`Eric G. Soller, Esq.
`Daniel M. Lechleiter, Esq.
`
`Union Bank, N.A./Unionbancal
`Corp.:
`
`Andrew J. Isbester, Esq.
`John Hall, Esq.
`
`U.S. Bancorp, US Bank:
`
`Wal-Mart:
`
`Wells Fargo:
`
`Kadie M. Jelenchick, Esq.
`Jeffrey W. Spear, Esq.
`
`Cynthia E. Kernick, Esq.
`Khurram N. Gore, Esq.
`Robert A. Muha, Esq.
`
`John Hall, Esq.
`Jonathan E. Harris, Esq.
`Andrew James Isbester, Esq.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 2006-003
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:22)
`
`

`

`40
`
`Since I'm doing this in the quick version,
`
`I'm going
`
`to go rather quickly.
`
`If we go to Slide No. 5,
`
`this shows the distinction
`
`between the original opposing parties and the new opposing
`
`parties. We distinguish that based upon when the initial case
`
`management conference occurred before Judge Fischer on October
`
`2nd.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`It would be fair to say now you're all
`
`just opposing parties because we're going to have the new -- as
`
`I said, whatever is filed on Friday about the infringement
`
`contentions,
`
`that applies to all the present parties here who
`
`are the opposing parties, whether new or the original ones.
`
`If
`
`there are ones that come along after this, we'll deal with
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`those later.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MR. LAVENUE: Slide 6 shows all of those opposing
`
`parties put into a chart divided by the different technology
`
`groups.
`
`So you can see that there are vast, different --
`
`everything from finance to food services, Starbucks, Chipotle,
`
`to airlines, Southwest Airlines,
`
`there are all these different
`
`technology areas.
`
`As you know,
`
`the accused devices here are apps,
`
`applications on a phone.
`
`So, all of these different entities
`
`provide apps that you can download onto your iPhone and use,
`
`and that is what -- that is part of what Maxim is going after.
`
`Page 2006-004
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:23)
`
`

`

`41
`
`At the original scheduling conference,
`
`they were only going
`
`after the apps.
`
`In their new infringement contentions,
`
`they
`
`have also added in some claims to websites. We're not sure
`
`where they're going with that, but it's now either apps or
`
`websites or both.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. LAVENUE:
`
`The next slide, Slide 7,
`
`shows all of
`
`the third parties that have received discovery in the case.
`
`You'll see when we do our quick run-through through
`
`the patents,
`
`the patents are all directed to hardware aspects,
`
`not software aspects alone, and,
`
`in fact, most of the patent
`
`claims in the case are mostly hardware with software thrown in.
`
`So,
`
`interestingly, Maxim did not sue the hardware
`
`manufacturers,
`
`that is,
`
`the smart phone manufacturers, which
`
`their claims are primarily directed to.
`
`They have only sued
`
`us,
`
`the application providers,
`
`so because of that, after the
`
`infringement contentions when we filed our initial motion to
`
`strike, we said,
`
`look, you have nothing.
`
`You can't show
`
`infringement.
`
`They then -- notice this began in November
`
`'09.
`
`They then began seeking discovery from all of the smart phone
`
`manufacturers. That's where all this is coming from,
`
`is in
`
`order to prove their case on hardware,
`
`they have to get that
`
`information from those smart phone companies.
`
`So, if we go to Slide 9,
`
`this shows the patents.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 2006-005
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:24)
`
`

`

`42
`
`There are five patents in the case.
`
`The first three on the top
`
`of the slide are asserted against everyone.
`
`The '095 patent is
`
`asserted against all but one party, QVC.
`
`Then the '702 is
`
`asserted only against two parties.
`
`Slide 10 shows the overall timing of how these
`
`patents came to exist.
`
`On the left-hand side of the screen you can see that
`
`these were filed in 1995 and 1996,
`
`so many, many years ago.
`
`They issued in 1998 through 2001, and then it wasn't until 10
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`to 12 years later that these patents were actually accused
`
`against the parties in this case, either in the original
`
`filings in January of 2012 or the supplemental filings in
`
`13
`
`October.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Slide 11 gives an overview of the patents as to what
`
`the different patents are directed to.
`
`I won't go through this, other than to just note
`
`that it deals with what is shown on the next slide, which is
`
`the iButton. This iButton is a devise that is the preferred
`
`embodiment for the patents on which the patents were written
`
`and on which they're based. This was created by a company
`
`named Dallas Semiconductor. Maxim purchased that company, and
`
`along with it, its patents. And then after they bought the
`
`patents they figured, ah, we have some patents and we can sue
`
`on them.
`
`So this iButton that you see on the screen,
`
`this was
`
`25
`
`the basis of that.
`
`Page 2006-006
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:25)
`
`

`

`43
`
`The way the iButton works is it is used with a
`
`reader. What is called a digital cash equivalent is placed
`
`onto the iButton, and you can see it's filled, one can walk
`
`around with it, and then go to a reader and use that iButton.
`
`So, you can see Maxim looks at this and they say,
`
`well, if we just replace that iButton with that smart phone and
`
`we replace that reader with the airwaves, that's where our
`
`infringement case is.
`
`Of course,
`
`the distinction is we're not cell phone
`
`manufacturers, we're app providers,
`
`so that's the difference.
`
`Slide 14 shows the patent figure which divides the
`
`patent or the patented technology into three sections. We have
`
`those numbered 1,
`
`2 and 3.
`
`No.
`
`1 is the portable module,
`
`the little iButton.
`
`No.
`
`2 is one of the readers that allows you to read
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`the iButton.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`And then No.
`
`3 is after you have loaded information
`
`or digital cash equivalents onto the iButton, you can then use
`
`19
`
`that at No. 3.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Slide 15 shows that the iButton is hardware-based
`
`and so,
`
`in order to prove infringement,
`
`they're going to have
`
`to show these hardware elements that are shown in the patent
`
`and are in the claims.
`
`These are in the claims of the patent.
`
`Slide 16 shows the portable module reader, again,
`
`hardware-based.
`
`It's described as a microprocessor-based
`
`Page 2006-007
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:26)
`
`

`

`44
`
`device not an application, which we provide.
`
`Slide 17 shows the third element, which is the
`
`security device or accessing the portable module, again,
`
`describing very specific hardware. Note that it even has such
`
`things as math coprocessors. Well, back in the 1990s math co
`
`processors were something that were new.
`
`It's now many, many
`
`years later and computers don't have math coprocessors anymore.
`
`So Maxim is going to have problems proving these things because
`
`these are old technologies in their patents.
`
`So,
`
`the overview of the accused technology on Slide
`
`19, we point out what I mentioned before, which is there are
`
`two things that are accused of infringement,
`
`the applications
`
`that go on a phone and the new allegations by Maxim of the
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`website.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Slide 20 makes the distinction that the opposing
`
`parties, we do not provide mobile phones, we only provide the
`
`applications.
`
`And Maxim does not, for some reason, accuse the
`
`phones in this case, only the applications.
`
`Slide 21, basically, that's the heart of the matter
`
`and that's what this case will be about is,
`
`is that iButton
`
`equal to a cell phone and can Maxim prove that claims that are
`
`written to that iButton are the same as applications that work
`
`on a phone.
`
`The next
`
`few slides are basically slides that are
`
`Page 2006-008
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:27)
`
`

`

`45
`
`directed to the complexities of the case.
`
`Slide 23 shows that they'll have to go to all of
`
`these cell phone manufacturers to get
`
`information to prove
`
`infringement.
`
`Slide 24 is really directed more to our motion to
`
`strike their infringement contentions,
`
`so I won't go into
`
`details there other than to mention that they have accused
`
`1,376 mobile phones of infringement, using our apps, with 51
`
`different cell phone manufacturers using our apps, but yet,
`
`in
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`their infringement contentions,
`
`they have not provided one
`
`chart that maps a single specified device to a software
`
`combination. What they do is they pick and choose.
`
`They take
`
`a little from here, a little from there. This will all be in
`
`14
`
`our motion to strike.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`THE COURT: You're going to have to be very careful
`
`the motion to strike isn't a disguised Markman issue.
`
`So, you
`
`are going to be very careful about that because if it is,
`
`I'm
`
`not going to entertain it.
`
`MR. LAVENUE: Understood, Your Honor. Our motion to
`
`strike is based on case law from the Eastern District of Texas,
`
`21
`
`the Northern District of California --
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`THE COURT:
`
`I don't want to go into it.
`
`I'm getting
`
`a sense here that you're trying to do a preemptive strike,
`
`so
`
`to speak, on this and if it's really something that is going to
`
`get into what should be reserved for the Markman hearing,
`
`I'm
`
`Page 2006-009
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:28)
`
`

`

`107
`
`1 those types of disputes and I don't want this to be a situation
`
`2 where people are running to the Court with that type of
`
`3 quarrel. But, I'll leave that for you to put into your
`
`4 submissions.
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7 you.
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Now,
`
`is there anything else?
`
`MR. POWERS: Nothing from Maxim, Your Honor.
`
`Thank
`
`THE COURT: Anything from any of the other parties?
`
`The other thing I will be circulating is the draft
`
`10 order for the Special Master appointment of Mr. Egan and that
`
`11 should be coming out shortly.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`MR. POWERS:
`
`Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Thank you all.
`
`(Court adjourned.)
`
`—————
`
`C E R T I F I C A T E
`
`19
`
`I, Juliann A. Kienzle, certify that the
`foregoing is a correct transcript from the record of
`20 proceedings in the above-titled matter.
`
`s/Juliann A. Kienzle
`
`Juliann A. Kienzle, RMR, CRR
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 2006-010
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:19)
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket